CreateDebate


Debate Info

8
6
Yes No
Debate Score:14
Arguments:18
Total Votes:16
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (7)
 
 No (5)

Debate Creator

WinstonC(851) pic



Should national borders be enforced?

Do countries need to have border protection in order to prevent uncontrolled population growth though immigration? Is freedom of movement more important? Are there any negative effects to unfettered movement? Are there any negative effects to enforcing borders?

Yes

Side Score: 8
VS.

No

Side Score: 6
2 points

There is no point to having a national border if there are no ramifications to crossing it without permission.

But with that said, my vote for enforcement is not a vote for carte blanche crushing of immigrants.

Side: Yes
1 point

It is really difficult sometimes to communicate with people when you are driving around in a tank in a foreign country that doesn't speak your language. It is also really easy for misunderstandings to arise.

Accident waiting to happen. Sometimes it is better to stop the tank at the border before a bad situation accidentally arises.

So no, not until we all speak Esperanto, and the American spirit dominates the Earth.

I say American spirit, because without the American spirit, we can't all drive around in tanks like civilized regulators of the militia.

And actually, forget Esperanto, nobody who isn't a total nerd is going to bother to learn that.

So if nations cannot enforce their borders, can anyone enforce borders? Sounds like part of a global domination scheme. Sounds like a way for the boots to march over homes and start seizing land. Border enforcement is illegal! Surrender your arms!

Waaaaaay too American to fall for that one.

Though I shouldn't say that, because there are still Americans who think that confiscation of arms is not a declaration of war. The don't see it, "Surrender or ELSE". They might be Americans, but are they REALLY Americans?

They sure are. Americans have the right to believe and speak about what ever they want.

Since I understand that not every country can handle the responsibility of an armed society, I think they have a right to borders. They should get their business in order as far as an armed population rather than simply get rolled over by every Texas oil tycoon who owns his own private military.

Cuz that is what would go down if the world just didn't gang up on America and demand that it surrender its arms. That's probably what is really going to happen.

The old global empire sneaking through the back again, attempting to reacquire what it claims to be its rightful possession.

Side: Yes
1 point

If national borders were not enforced in developed countries, mass immigration would inevitably result. This is because people in undeveloped countries have an abysmal quality of life and naturally this makes them want to escape to greener pastures. Also, people can move to work in developed countries and send money back home. This allows their family to live like royalty because goods and services are far cheaper in undeveloped countries.

This massive population growth would lead to a number of problems. First of all, social programs such as healthcare, welfare, public education etc. would collapse under the strain caused by the massive increase in recipients. Secondly, resources that are already finite, such as housing and employment opportunities will become even more scarce. Thirdly, the citizens of undeveloped countries hold different views, some of which are clearly wrong, such as support for female genital mutilation. In a democracy, the more that the populace strays away from libertarian liberal democratic values, the more authoritarian our elected representatives will become.

Side: Yes
0 points

I think eventually we will have a global borderless system of one form or another, but as things currently are we need borders for our own protection, and it's unrealistic to expect anyone to give up their borders unless you want to go to war with them...or just have them elect a far left candidate with a muslim jihadi gangbang fetish

Side: Yes
2 points

or just have them elect a far left candidate with a muslim jihadi gangbang fetish

Now let me explain how reality really works.

If the Christian and Jewish far right launches a twenty year campaign of slander and abuse against Islam and the left points out the rampant double standards and hypocrisy being used, that does not mean the left is an ally of Islamic Jihad, or even Islam. It means the left has a problem with one bunch of religious nutters slandering another bunch of religious nutters, especially when they believe almost exactly the same things.

Side: No
FactMachine(370) Disputed
0 points

The main differences between Muslims, Christians and Jews are as follows. Muslims tend to be radical and violent, Christians are just as retarded as Muslims but don't actually read their bible so they don't realize that they are supposed to be killing infidels and not eating pork as well, and Jews are just as evil as Muslims but instead of committing acts of terrorism they become bankers and lobbyists and such.

Side: Yes
1 point

When countries can unite with their neighbors it will be possible to have freedom of movement for their populations and mobility to seek employment, education, and cultural exchange, all of which create conditions more likely to maintain peace. This has been working well in the European Union whose youth are benefiting in all sorts of ways. Sadly, English youth have been betrayed by the decision of their elders to leave the European Union.

Side: No
Imperium(41) Disputed
1 point

That is not entirely true. The EU passed the Schengen agreement, which the UK was not a part of. Those countries that chose to act upon this agreement have relatively free diffusion of people and goods across their borders. However, the UK was not a part of this act, and retained management of its borders in comparison to other member countries. The downfall of said agreement is that law enforcement becomes considerably more complicated, as does migration and regulation.

Side: Yes
Eloy(196) Clarified
1 point

You are giving a false impression to American readers that British immigration officers can prevent the free movement of workers, tourists, and scholars into the United Kingdom from any European Union country. This is not so. The free movement of people is in effect in all member states including Britain as well as some non-members which want access to the single market.

Side: Yes
1 point

This is a hard one, but I'll say that free movement usually works. It depends though, because if people are abusing the liberty of free movement (drug trafficking for example), then the borders should be enforced. I would say that it really depends on the situation.

Side: No
Eloy(196) Clarified
1 point

Many American police departments use the classification of marijuana as an illegal drug to make arrests of scores of thousands within their jurisdictions. If marijuana were decriminalized to be like tobacco, most drug offenders will disappear at the stroke of a pen.

Side: Yes